Nonprofits That Stray Off Course

This week I read about a nonprofit accused of losing sight of its mission and those it serves. The story reminded me of another nonprofit I read about months ago in similar straits. These stories provide lessons to those of us who work in or with nonprofits.

My mom is a breast cancer survivor so the cause is close to my heart. Even though it’s old news, it pains me to learn thatSusan G. Komen For the Cure is going after nonprofitsthey perceive as infringing on Komen trademarks by using “for the cure” in their names. Komen’s general counsel said, “We see it as responsible stewardship of our donor’s funds.” I knew a percentage of my donation went to overhead and administrative costs, but I didn’t think it’d go to unnecessary lawsuits.

Or, maybe they are necessary?Reporting on the Komen lawsuits, the Wall St. Journal raised the issue of donor confusion. The article gave examples of donors contributing to the wrong charity because they were confused by look-alike names. It’s a fine line between helping donors send their money to the intended charity and funding a legal campaign to protect your brand. Donors don’t care about brand infringement, they care about the work you do.

My second example of a group that may have lost its way: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). TheAmerican Institute of Philanthropy’s Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report downgraded MADD to a “D” rating on an A-F scale earlier this year. A press release from theAmerican Beverage Institute (ABI), admittedly a biased onlooker, provides some ugly numbers – a decline in revenue and spending on community programs, while salaries increased.Wikipedia, sourcing the organization’s tax forms, says MADD spent more than half its income on salaries in 2008.

The ABI said, “These financial changes reveal a shift in MADD’s mission. In the words of its founder, Candy Lightner, MADD “has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.” ABI and MADD will always battle, but the numbers don’t lie, nor, I assume does Ms. Lightner. An organization loses its way, goes off course and what does it get? “D” isn’t a failure, yet, but it’s pretty darn close.

Our charity went through very similar issues over the past 3 years when a “competing” (not our words) non-profit corporation decided to trademark the phrase “Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness”. CDH is a birth defect that harms 1600 babies a year in the U.S., taking the lives of 800 of them. Trademarking this phrase would be tantamount to trademarking “Autism Awareness” or “Breast Cancer Awareness”.

We were threatened every time we used the phrase to help our babies. Every site we had, every e-store, every product, etc – reported for “trademark violations”. Out one side of their mouth they were filing charges and complaint, out the other side telling families and posting on their site/blog/etc that they weren’t “policing” the phrase but holding on to it because they believed it was their “intellectual property”. FYI, our charity was founded 10 years before this group and have been raising CDH Awareness since 1995. We are the world’s first and largest CDH charity.

2 years of batting in the USPTO court, 1000’s of signatures on a petition, and lots of drama… we won. We were lucky enough to have an amazing law firm (Parker Poe out of Raleigh) want to help our babies and represent us for free. The other group spent 100% of their general donations for 2009 on legal fees against us to own the trademark.

This is indeed another example of a nonprofit who strayed off course. The cause should come first to any nonprofit with integrity. What a sad shame some are falling prey to greed over the very people they are supposed to be helping.

Great article!!!! Hopefully the people who support charities who behave in this manner will call upon them to represent their causes with more dignity and not attack other charities or take their donations and support elsewhere. The whole nonprofit community should boycott any organization who behaves in such a manner.

I had always presumed MADD was against drunk driving, but in the past several years all you hear is their war against any kind of alcoholic beverage and fighting to make the alcohol blood level so narrow that it could indict a non-drunk person. You get paranoid about one beer while having dinner out. They should be going after the drunk drivers not the ones who have one drink at dinner time.

I agree with you. I’m a craft beer lover and many of our community’s bloggers have referred to the new MADD as neo-prohibitionist. It’s a definition that fits, and it’s a shame. Drunk driving prevention and education merits focus. MADD fails all of us on the road when they lose their focus.

I agree with you. I’m a craft beer lover and many of our community’s bloggers have referred to the new MADD as neo-prohibitionist. It’s a definition that fits, and it’s a shame. Drunk driving prevention and education merits focus. MADD fails all of us on the road when they lose their focus.